Opinion filed March 12 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 03 61 -CR

____ ____ __ CHA D B AILE Y, Ap pellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 104th Distric t Court

Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 16250B

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant ente red a

n open plea of guilty to the offense of ag g ravated robbery

. The trial c ourt sentenc ed him to confineme n t in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice for

a ter m of twelve y ear s. I n two is s u es , appellant c ontends that his guilty plea wa s inv olu nta ry . We a ff

ir m. Factual Back ground Appellant ente red his g uilty plea at a hea

ri n g that occur

red on July

9, 2007. Appellant testified at the hear ing that he was e x perie ncing dental proble ms while being incar cer ated pe ndingT he tri al c ourt inf orm ed appe lla

nt’s m othe r t

hat it w ould be w ill ing to per

m it him to v is it a priv at e dent is t dur ing his pe riod 1 of incarc eration if she w ou ld m ake the necess ary arrange m ents. 2 tr ia l and that he wo uld

lik e to g e t out of

ja il f or tr e a tme nt. Th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d a pp e lla nt’ s r e qu e st to be re lease d on a per sonal rec og nizance bond until the subsequent punishment h ea ri ng
. The 1 J uly 9, 2007 hear ing c oncluded without the trial c ourt making a finding of g uilt. The pu n is hment hear ing oc curr ed on September 14, 2007. Appellant re quested the tria l court to either plac e him on community supervision or def

err ed adjudic at i o n
. Ap pellant’s trial c ounsel

re pe a te d a

pp e lla nt’ s r e qu e st t o b e pla c e d o n c omm un ity su pe rv isi on duri nghis c los inga rgumen t. During t h e p rosec utor’s closing argument, the State advised a ppellant and the tr ial court that community

supervision was not an a

vailable form of puni shment for ag g ravated robbery under T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. A NN
. ar t

. 42.12, § 3g (a) (F ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). At the close of the September 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 hear ing, the trial court f ound appellant guilty

of “a g g ravated robbe ry

with a de a dly we a po n” a nd a sse sse d h is p un ish me nt at c on fi ne me nt i n p ri so n f or a te rm of tw e lve y e a rs
. Appellant subseque ntly filed a motion for new trial based on the alleg ation that the State was not able to locate the vi ct i m for tria l. Appellant asser ted in the motion that he would not have pleade d g uilty

if he ha d known that the State wa s unable to locate the victim. T h e t ri al court considere d th e m o t i o n fo r newtrial at a he aringthat occur red on N ovember

8, 2007. Appellant ini tia lly c a lle d D a n Pe te rs on , a

n in ve sti g a tor

in t he Ta y lor

County Di str ic t A tto rn e y ’s Of

fi c e , a s a witness. Appellant questioned Pete rson re g ardinghis ability to locate the victim. Peterson testified that he ha d not h a d a

ny pr ob le ms c omm

un ic a tin g wi th t

he vic timin t

he pa st i n o rd e r t o s e c ur e his

a tte nd a nc e a t tr ia l. Appellant also testified at the hear ing on the m otion for new t rial. He state d that he had be en incar cer ated f

or six teen months awa iting trial and that the c ase ha d been se t for trial on five previous

occa sions. Appellant additionally testified t hat he decide d to enter an open guilty

plea be cause of his de sir e to o bta in d e nta l tr e a tme nt. At the c on c lus ion of the he a ri ng on the mot ion fo r n e w tri a l,

a pp e lla nt’ s tr ia l c ouns e l ma de the fo llo wi nga rgume nt t o th e tr ia l c ourt : Your Honor , I think that if this case had gone to trial the first four times it was set that it would have g iven y ou a better understandingo f wh at re al l y went on out the re . I jus t – I jus t f e e l li ke tha

t my c lie nt en te re d a ple a be c a us e he ’d be e n th e re so long a nd he wa nted to g o ahea d and g et it over with and h e fe l t l i k e that – that he would be understood about hi s role in it and that he’d be considere d for pr obation. And, y ou know, I

just feel re al bad f

or hi m
. I fe el l ike it’s something I did, y ou3

kn ow , th a t I ’v e le d h im dow n the pr imr os e path be c a us e , y ou kn ow , I – w he n h e sa id – well, I had to te ll him, I said, “We’re not goingto ge t to trial any time soon,” and he said, “ Well, I ’d like to do an ope n plea so may be I could g et my

teeth wor ked on and g et out,” y ou know. And that’s – I think if we had ha d the witness her e, the victim here, it would explain some of the c ircumstance s that might have helped us a l i t t l e b i ti n s en t en ci n g. An aly sis A g uilty plea must be fre ely and voluntarily made to be valid. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 26.13 (V ernon Supp. 2008). An involuntar y g uilty plea must be set a side. Boyk in v. Alabama , 39 5 U .S. 23 8, 24 4 ( 19 69 ); W ill iam s v . S

tat e , 522 S.W .2d 483, 485 (Tex. Crim. Ap p
. 1 975). To deter mine if a pl ea i s v o l u n tary , we c onsider the r ecor d as a w hole. W illiams , 522 S.W .2d at 485. I n order to obtain relief on a claim of an invol untary plea based upon erroneous infor mation being

c on ve y e d to the a c c us e d, a n a pp lic a nt m

us t a lle g e a

nd sh owtha t he wo uld

no t ha ve ple a de d g uil ty had he be en g iven the cor rec t information. Br own v . S tat e , 943 S.W .2d 35, 36, 42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Ineffec tive Assistance of Counsel Ap pe lla nt a lle g e s in

his fi rs t is su e that hi s g uil ty ple a wa s in vo luntari ly and un kn ow ing ly enter ed bec ause of the ineff ective a ssistance of tr ial counsel. F ailure to a dvise a de fenda nt on the conseque nces of

a g uilty plea may

constitute ineffe ctive assistanc e. Se e J ac k so n v . S tat e , 139 S.W. 3d 7, 18 -2 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2 00 4, pe t. re f’ d)

. Ho we ve r, wh e n a de fe nd a nt i s p ro pe rl y
a dmo nis he d a

nd state s th a t he is e nte ri nghis g uil ty pl ea freel y

a nd vo lun tari ly , “ thi s e sta

bli sh e s a prima fa cie c ase that the plea wa s knowing and voluntary .” Ma lle tt v . S tat e , 6 5 S. W. 3 d 5 9 , 6 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2001). To deter mine whether

appellant’ s trial counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive as s i s t ance at trial, we must first determine whe ther a ppellant has shown that c ounsel’s re p re s entation fell below an ob je c tiv e s t a n d a r d

o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a n d , i f

s o , t h e n d e t e r

m i n e w h e t h e r

t h e r e i s a

r e a s o n a ble probability

that the re sult would have been differ ent but f or counsel’s e rror s. W

igg ins v . S

mi th , 539 U. S. 5 10 (2 00 3) ; Strickland v. W ashington , 4 66 U. S. 6 68 (1 98 4) ; An dr e ws v . S tat e , 159 S.W .3d 98 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); Tho mp so n v . S tat e , 9 S.W .3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). An alleg ation of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e mus t be fi rm ly fo un de d in the re c or d, a nd the re c or d must affi rm ativ e ly demonstrate the alleg ed inef fec tiveness. Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 814. Un de r n or ma l c ir c ums tanc e s, the re c or d o n d ir e c t a

pp e a l w ill no t be su ff

ic ie nt t o s ho w that c ouns e l’ s r e pr e se ntatio n w a s soThe State concedes that appellant has sa tisf ied the first pro ng of the Str ic kl and te st

. 2
4 defic ient and so lac king a s to overc ome the pre sumption t hat counse l’s conduct wa s rea sonable a nd profe ssional. Bo ne v . S

tat e , 77 S.W .3d 828, 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Rarely will the record on dir e c t a pp e a l con ta in suf

fi c ie nt inf or ma tio n to per

mit a re vie wi ng c ourt to f

a ir ly e va luate the me ri ts of such a serious alleg ation. Id

. The Strickland standard applies to challeng es t o g uilty pleas. Hi ll v . Lo c k

ha rt , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). F or the purpose of our analy sis, we assume that appe llant’s trial counsel’ s mistaken belief reg ardinghis eligibility for court-or dere d community supervision fell below a n objective standa

rd

o f reasonablene ss. To satisfy the sec ond prong of Strickland , a p p e l l a n t m u s t s h o w t h e r e is a 2

re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that, bu t fo r c ouns e l’ s e rr or s, he wo uld no t have ple a de d g uil ty bu t w ou ld instead have insisted on going to trial. Id

. The re cord doe s not establish with a rea sonable proba bility that appellant would not have pleade d g uilty

but for trial c ounsel’s er

ror. While trial counsel a lluded to the err or in his arg ument on the motion for new tr ial, there is no testimony from appe llant where he stated that he relied on the er ror in dec iding to plea d g uilty . To the contra ry , appel l an t t es t i fi ed that he dec ided to plead g uilty based pr imarily

upon his desire to obtain dental treatment. Appellant did not alleg e counse l’s

err or as a basis for his motion for new trial, and he did not seek to w ithdraw his plea whe n he lea rned tha t t h e t r i a l c o u rt c o u l d n o t p l a c e h i m o n c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n
. A p p e l l a n t ’ s f

i r s t is su e is

overr uled. Trial Court Admonishment I n h is s e c on d is su e , a

pp e lla nt a sse rt s that his g uil ty

ple a wa s in vo lun tari ly

a nd un kn ow ing ly enter ed bec ause the trial court did not properly admonish him that communit y supervision was not available

. A t rial court has an aff irmative dut y to admonish a defenda nt on the ra

ng e of punishment attache d to the offe nse bef ore the court may

acc ept the def

endant’ s plea of g uilty . Article 26.13( a)( 1). The c ourt has no duty

to admonish the defendant as to his eligibility for c ommunity

supervision. See Ex parte W

illiams , 704 S.W .2d 773, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 8 6 ). I f, howe ver, the trial court

vo lun te e rs a n a dmo nish men t as to the a va ila bil ity of c omm un ity su pe rv isi on , th e c ourt

imp os e s a duty upon itself to acc urate ly

admonish the defe ndant. Id

. Appellant conc edes that the trial court proper ly admonished him on the applica ble ra ng e of punis hme nt. F ur

the rm or e , a

pp e lla nt d oe s n ot a lle g e that the tr ia l c ourt pr ov ide d h im w ithina c c ur a te5

information about community supervision. Appellant a rg ues, howe ver, that the t rial cour t allowed others to provide h i m wi t h inacc urate information about community supervision and that that imposed a duty on the trial court to inter vene by providing him with accur ate infor mation. Appellant

c ite s n o a uth or ity fo r t he pr op os iti on

th at ano the r p e rs on ’s mis re pr e se ntatio n a bo ut c omm

un ity supervision imposes a duty on the trial cour

t to provide a ccur ate infor mation, and our own r esea rch has discover ed none. I n the absenc e of authority imposing such a duty on the trial cour

t to corre ct a misstatement about the availability of community

supervision sua sponte, we conclude that the trial court did not err in f

ailing to a dmonish a

ppellant. Moreove r, we disag ree with appellant’s c laim that the tr ia l c ourt

imp ro pe rl y

le d h im t o b e lie ve he wa s e lig ibl e fo r p ro batio n. Ev e n th ou g h c omm un ity supervision and def

err ed adjudication are inde pendent of eac h other, de fer

red a djudication is a ty

pe of probation, and appellan t wa s el igible f or def err ed adjudication. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 42.12, §§ 3, 5 (V ernon Supp. 2008). Appe llant’s second issue is over ruled. This Court’s Ruling The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

T E R RY M c C A LL

JUSTI CE

Marc h 12, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , a n d

S t r a n g e , J.